Skip to main content

Media Multi-Corporations, Modern Media and State of the Nation: Media Literacy/Activism: Technique & Autonomy-Lies

  • Author:
  • Updated date:

From Infancy To Old Age-Techne Rules...

Technological Determinsm as espoused byMcLuhan...

Technological Determinsm as espoused byMcLuhan...

Media Activists make their views and feelings known in regards to the media

Media Activists make their views and feelings known in regards to the media

The Corporation Baby: Multicorporations have a long term investment on our children from when they are born, become small kids, teenagers, adults, old men/women till they pass- the corporation has them hooked up to the hilt in their life.

The Corporation Baby: Multicorporations have a long term investment on our children from when they are born, become small kids, teenagers, adults, old men/women till they pass- the corporation has them hooked up to the hilt in their life.

Social Media and Internet Trends for 2010 and beyond

Social Media and Internet Trends for 2010 and beyond

Above is the mother of all outdoor Coke Ads, A giant neon lit coca-Cola bottle in Red China's Shanghai. A very Multicultural picture indeed. This is 'the convergence' of capitalism and Marxism. It's like the merging of Dickens Hard times with Orwell'

Above is the mother of all outdoor Coke Ads, A giant neon lit coca-Cola bottle in Red China's Shanghai. A very Multicultural picture indeed. This is 'the convergence' of capitalism and Marxism. It's like the merging of Dickens Hard times with Orwell'

There's a major cultural schism developing in America. The new divide centers on free enterprise, the principle at the core of American culture. the real culture war is over capitalism

There's a major cultural schism developing in America. The new divide centers on free enterprise, the principle at the core of American culture. the real culture war is over capitalism

Cultural Diversity at the level of Muppets,isis another way to each children that multicultural diversity is part of human nature and culture- and there's nothing wrong in the differences of race and color of all earth's children and people

Cultural Diversity at the level of Muppets,isis another way to each children that multicultural diversity is part of human nature and culture- and there's nothing wrong in the differences of race and color of all earth's children and people

Children are better taught that differences of race, color and culture are not differences at all, but multiculturalism, which is a human reality and existence

Children are better taught that differences of race, color and culture are not differences at all, but multiculturalism, which is a human reality and existence

Multiculturalism and human diversity

Multiculturalism and human diversity

Fairness and Accuracy in Different media

Fairness and Accuracy in Different media

The cry for the ordinary and poor working class people against Big Media

The cry for the ordinary and poor working class people against Big Media

Fairness and Accuracy in the Media and their Radio Program, Counterspin Logos

Fairness and Accuracy in the Media and their Radio Program, Counterspin Logos

Twitterverse: New and emerging interconnected Social networking media, which is like the extension of ourselves like our nervous system

Twitterverse: New and emerging interconnected Social networking media, which is like the extension of ourselves like our nervous system

Media Literacy: Teaching that the Open and Fair Exchange of Information is vital for Civil Society

Media Literacy: Teaching that the Open and Fair Exchange of Information is vital for Civil Society

Protest at Land rover dealership in Nottingham by Greenpeace activists

Protest at Land rover dealership in Nottingham by Greenpeace activists

Cultural Jammers Hijacking Commercial Culture, logos and armed with DIy anti-ad stickers, custom neon, aiming to subvert and reclaim corporate media space

Cultural Jammers Hijacking Commercial Culture, logos and armed with DIy anti-ad stickers, custom neon, aiming to subvert and reclaim corporate media space

Cultural Jammers are a new breed of waging war on logos and symbols, and aim to cause a bit of brand damage to corporate mindshare

Cultural Jammers are a new breed of waging war on logos and symbols, and aim to cause a bit of brand damage to corporate mindshare

The Media Literacy Project cultivates critical thinking and activism to build a healthy world through media justice

The Media Literacy Project cultivates critical thinking and activism to build a healthy world through media justice

Media Activist and the raising of the power of the media and corporations

Media Activist and the raising of the power of the media and corporations

Social Media has proven over time that it is able to bring benefits to both giant corporations and small businesses. Online backlashes and productivity losses highlight the ugly side of social media

Social Media has proven over time that it is able to bring benefits to both giant corporations and small businesses. Online backlashes and productivity losses highlight the ugly side of social media

Scroll to Continue
In 1992 there were a fewer than two dozen companies who owned and operated 90% of the mass media.. By they year 200, the number had fallen to six; since then mergers have expanded to include the Internet market

In 1992 there were a fewer than two dozen companies who owned and operated 90% of the mass media.. By they year 200, the number had fallen to six; since then mergers have expanded to include the Internet market

Technopolic Action And Environment

Inferior and Superior Cultures

Fu-Kiau says: "... I believe a people are engaged in such death-bringing activities because of fundamental deviations from basic ethical, moral and spiritual principles of life and tradition. These fundamental deviations weaken the body's functioning and individual self-healing power, the best healer of any individual and, therefore, society. It is mortally dangerous to deviate from certain traditions. ... It hurts to lose certain traditions, these are practical principles of life. The loss can lead to self destruction of the individual, society,the world, and its civilization."

In these days of culture wars splurged on out TV screens and chatted and swooned over the Internet, one would imagine that writing such an article would get a response form many people who are seeing and facing the same tense and destabilized atmosphere that we see. At this time and age we are so wired and held in trance by the Internet and TV that we become numb to their deliveries of issues that they inform us as threatening our social stability, and that the existing media culture creates reaction as if some 'traditions' and those 'practical principles of life' are going to be lost to some new social order and under a leader who is covertly creating those conditions.

There was a time when color prejudice was not the norm. There are many reasons why that color became an issue throughout the years, and why today we have customized clashes that are with us continually. Whenever a people came across each other, there were different reactions they relayed to each other. People of antiquity had treated strangers in their lands as guests; strangers in the new land ended up interfering on the internal affairs of the people they have just met, and continued to subdue them because they felt culturally and militarily superior.

The superiority and inferiority complexes became established pattern and ways of knowing and interacting with one another. The present 'culture wars' as seen on TV have a long and sordid history dating to the founding of this country. Articles like the one I am onto do not get a lot of reading because at times its due to the set patterns of how different cultures communicate and accept each other as legit or not. One culture is legit and is respected for that, and other cultures are not and are treated as nothing.

This way of relating to each has caused and is causing a lot of ignorance and arrogance in one culture having the right to deny the authenticity of one culture and respecting some other culture. This may sound simplistic an analysis, but it's not. For example, according to Asa Hilliard, "The lasting challenge that we face is the absence of information understanding African and other cultures. This has been by design. The enforcers of an oppressive system work to create cultural disorder among the oppressed. In particular, they suppress the value of other cultures, while glorifying and fabricating the history of themselves. They understand that the resulting disorder will make it impossible for the oppressed to be truly independent."

The creation of the deliberate misunderstanding of other and between cultures is what we see playing itself out on TV and Internet. The vilification of other peoples looks, food, clothes, cultures, behaviors, accent or not has given the anti-cultural warriors and operatives the most important role people in these times of recession, depression, health coverage and politics to be promote negativism. This negativism is a historical progression form the days of old(when Indians and Africans were seen as savages) to today where white supremacy flexes itself as the definer of all cultures since it is considered a superior and the greatest culture ever.

The translation of an old cultural way of seeing and perception today has become the dominant view and top and high culture. Frantz Fanon makes these observations: "The unilaterally decreed normative value of certain cultures deserves our careful attention.... The enterprise of deculturation turns out to be the negative of a more gigantic work of economic, and even biological enslavement.... The doctrine of cultural hierarchy is thus but one aspect of a systematized hierarchization implacably pursued.... For its systems of reference have to be Broken.

Expropriation, spoliation, raids,objective murder, are matched by the sacking of cultural patterns, or at least condition such sacking. The social panorama is destructed; values are flaunted, crushed and emptied. ... The lines of force, having crumbled, no longer give directions. In their stead, a new system of values is imposed, not proposed but affirmed, but the very heavy weight of cannons and sabers. This culture, once living and open to the future, becomes closed, fixed in the colonial status, caught in the yoke of oppression, both present and mummified, it testifies against its members.

It defines them in fact without appeal. The cultural mummification leads to a mummification of individual thinking. The apathy so universally noted among colonial peoples, is but the logical consequence of this operation. Their approach of inertia constantly directed at the natives is utterly dishonest. As though it were possible for a man to evolve otherwise than within the framework of a culture that recognizes him that he decides to assume....

Thus, we witness the setting up of archaic, inert institutions, functioning under the oppressors supervision and patterned like a caricature of formerly fertile institutions. What we see today as culture wars as projected on TV, have their antecedents in the formulation and beginnings of this country and are still continuing today.

Cultural Dependency and Media Propaganda

People who are culturally depended end up being culturally deprived, and they tend to internalize and utilize everything that they are socialized to believe is right. By having a grip and hold on media monopoly the Westerners were able to shape their own image and that of Africans and other minorities. The media owners have reflected their agenda on Old and new and emerging media like newspapers, magazines, television, cable, radio, Internet, cell phones, twittering, face books, Youtube, posters, T-Shirts and so forth, clearly.

Africans and other minorities around the world are made invisible until they are needed to be exploited. The use of the media in this case is to wet, shape and create consumers, making profit, meanwhile projecting the image of the poor and oppressed majorities of people of color as being backward, incompetent and immoral. This was put into some perspective by Cecil Rhodes who said: "The native is to be treated as a child and denied franchise. We must adopt the system of despotism such as works well in India and in our relations with the barbarians of South Africa... These are my politics and these are the politics of South Africa."

This was not limited only to the countries mentioned by Rhodes, but this was a global phenomena through which the war on people of different countries and cultures were assailed, and in some cases, wiped-off the face of the earth

In a different case, we see that the criticism of an African writing and novels, a number of these writers were writing for audiences with European sensibilities and culture. The African novel was read and perceived through European style of writing. Even though these authors are aware that African culture is clearly under European domination, they continue to think that it ought to remains .

Chinweizu furthers this point thus: "Most of them would be ashamed to admit it, but these Africans and [some minorities-my addition] view their literature as an overseas department of European literatures, as a literature with no traditions of its own to build upon, no models of its own, no audience or constituency separate and apart form the European, and above all, no norms of its own.

As a result, these critics charge that Third-world writing with various technical, thematic, and ideological inadequacies. Cultural wars are not only intellectual, and physical but literal and practical. The wars on the cultures of other nations means there was control of their mind set and thinking processes and writing processes. Although these cultures' own literatures have their own traditions, models and norms, these remain constrained and deliberately ignored because they have to follow the European model of writing.

No more than thirty corporations control the media, and through this are able to influence the attitudes and behavior of every person in America and many countries around the world. The same companies own or have some interests in several newspapers, television, book publishing, music recording, tele-communications, radio talk shows, and Internet services. Because they are using endless resources of these powerful conglomerations, this has enabled them to shape the publics view of reality.

The world media, therefore, in essence reinforces white supremacy. Any major issue arising that affects the poor and culturally disempowered people of the world, like Healthcare, AIDS, Fair Housing, Criminal Justice, Affirmative Action, Education, and so on, the media consciously reinforces these positions that are in opposition to their(media) interest. This can be seen in radio talk shows hosted by Nazi-like conservatives( i.e. Rush Limbaugh and his many talk show clones].

Knuckle-heads like Glenn Beck, Lou Dobbs [and many other talking heads] who spend hours ranting and in bellicose and reactionary vitriolic and vicious hateful rhetoric. This can also be seen in Movies like the Monster's Ball (2002) which suggests that black men are boys and a person who can help her materially and sexually is a racist white man. When given a chance, some Black film makers present the images of black women and men no less exploitatively than the degrading ones typically presented by whites.

The Black Media Experience

Chuck D.. Founder of Public Enemy put it this way: "We don't control our economies or education, our enforcement of our environment. Then there's the tendency of not having control over the realities, and that means the fantasy world can be dealt and sold to us very easily. So people become what they see, and when people become what they see, a reflection or a limited reflection can end up as a direct interpretation. For anyone interested in the state of Black-owned media in the US, the joke was painfully on target.

It expressed community disappointment with Black Entertainment (BET), which was the largest Black owned media company in America until 2000 and reaches 98 percent of the nation's Black cable subscribers. BET is now a subsidiary of the white media conglomerate Viacom. And it might be argued that this "prank" laments the decline of local and national Black public affairs programming, especially in light of BET's shortcomings. It clearly illustrates the danger of trusting black ownership or influence automatically guarantees fair and varied representation of the African American Community.(Sallie Hoffmeister, 2000; Adam Zagorin, 1997)

Over the last four centuries, Blacks have created newspapers, journals, magazines, radio and television programs, and World Wide Wb sites, yet such attempts have met with varying levels of success, particularly in the realm of Broadcasting. Although representations of Black on television made notable in the 17970s, 1980s and mid-1990s with a handful of dramatic series and situation comedies that featured African Americas, the medium seemed to usher in the millennium in retrogressive style, as aptly noted by Chuck D.

Nevertheless, the dream of Black television network ownership, although battered, still survives Two new "mini networks" are attempting to snip at BET's heels - New Urban Entertainment Television (NUE-TV) and the Major Broadcasting Corporation(MBC). Blacks are the primary partners in both enterprises. MBC - whose principal partners include singer Marlon Jackson and boxer Evander Holyfield - has made the most progress, with its signal now being carried on several major cable networks, including Comcast.

MBC carries contemporary gospel videos, church services, classic 1970s made-for-television movies such as "The Autobiography f Miss Jane Pittman," and Black College Sports. The good news is that national Black syndication efforts, such as Frank Mercado-Valdez's' Heritage Network, are thriving because they require sales to individual stations, not an entire channel.

There are some "stars" in radio and TV such as the Tom Joyner Morning show and a TV Show targeting African Americans directly. The shows feature political commentary and interviews with Black Newsmakers. Joyner's show is syndicated by ABC Radio Networks, and led to the creation of BlackAmericaWeb.com, an online newspaper. Tavis Smiley - the founding host of BET Tonight who appears in the Joyner's show — is a nationally syndicated commentator on ABC Radio, and hosts a syndicated National Public Radio/TV programs for African American audiences. In fact, by the 1970s, most major markets could boast one, if not several of these programs.

The best known of that time might be New York City's Like It Is , hosted by Gil Noble on WABC-TV. But these shows,and other contemporary one today, with their wide reach, are the exceptions. The membership of the National Association of Black-owned Broadcasting, the organizations of Black-owned radio owners, totals less than 300 members in 29002(it might have changed by now). This is in stark contrast to the conglomerates that own hundreds of radio stations around the nation.

Multiculturalism as Novocaine

The most demonized people in the media are Africans, Hispanics and other minorities, and from these groups, those who are consciously African or Hispanic or otherwise who provide the truth are either dismissed and or ignored, and their books, blogs and articles not read because they provide truthful and are unrelenting critiques of European hegemonic institutions; white supremacy.

One of the few reason why Africans/Hispanic, etc., are represented in the media is for the purposes of demonizing certain sectors of these communities.(In this case we can also recall the Sotomayor saga and other such stories and incidents) The only Africans/Hispanic, etc., who escape criticism are the self-professed "colorless" good Africans/Hispanics, etc., so long as they do not step out of line.

To that end, these divisive entities have reached inside our communities, co-opted and chose our leadership, thus directing their culture war against us through these co-opted leaders. These corporations, though their media and operatives, have sent 'trained' quislings onto these poor communities and their paltry institutions to attempt to lead the families and communities into a blind allegiance, to the alien agenda that does not serve the interests of these communities.

Today, the divide and conquer strategy is employed and deployed by the right wing and the left wing. Cultural terrorists have always used the domination agenda to divide the poor/Third world peoples from each other, by many and any means at their disposal in order to bond them to their being dominated. The case of Brazil offers us a peak into how cultural terrorism by Europeans has been effective. Hilliard states: "In 1914, Theodore Roosevelt wrote an article in a popular magazine describing what he had seen and heard in Brazil.

He was told the following by one observer in Brazil"

"Of course the presence of the Negro the problem, and a very serious problem, both in your country, and mine, Brazil. Slavery wan an intolerable method of solving the problem, and had to be abolished. But the problem itself remained, in the presence of the negro. ..With us the question tends to disappear, because the blacks themselves tend to disappear and become absorbed. ...

"In Brazil, the Idea looked forward to is the disappearance of the Negro question through his disappearance of the Negro himself. ...That is through his gradual absorption into the white race." The de-Africanization of Afro-Brazilians was the result of a deliberate government of "whitening" Brazil, and they adopted propaganda that asserted and suggested that Brazil is a "racial democracy".

Dr Asa Hilliard makes this point: "Restricting one's identity to physical characteristics is equal to acquiescing to the European domination strategy of ethnic cleansing and cultural genocide. People often confuse "race" with ethnic and cultural identity. When we see people who look like us, we assume that they all regard themselves as members of the african ethnic family; in addition to being black. Many Africans believe that our only real struggle is to join the mythical "mainstream" as individuals.

'While we, as Africans, may have individual distinctions connected to religion, class, nationality, etc., we must be carful not to be deluded by these imposed distinctions.' Pablo Neruda, the Nobel Prize poet from Chile, spoke of a Latin American experience as not essentially dissimilar form the African Experience today. With a single sentence from one poem, he made the sense of imperialism concrete and visible effect; he wrote: "If New York glitters like gold and has buildings with 500 bars, let me leave it written that they were built from the sweat of the cane fields: the banana plantation is a green inferno, so that in New York they may drink and dance."

To have a genuine multicultural society today, we need to revisit the uncomfortable truths of cultural terrorism visited upon the defenseless and colonized/Imperialized people all over the world. It is not going to be easy because there are people who still believe and hold on to the notions that it is no more relevant to discuss these issues. Yet their historical and contemporary effects affect us in our day to day activities and interaction with each other within the cultural minefield we have seen thus far spewed forth by Corporate controlled media.

The corporations are not only interested in spinning the images or regurgitating negative propaganda, but they are guarding their other interest of the natural resources and cheap human labor in these countries. In the process of carrying out these attacks on the indigenous for their natural resources, the Imperialist went for the heart and minds of these simple folk as characterized in a way by Ali Mazrui: "... Their collective names became "Negroes"(or even 'Niggers'),-a name based on the color of their skin. In short, the whole history of slavery and racism in the United States had one persistent refrain addressed to the captives.

The rule is: forget where you came from, remember what you look like. Forget your ancestry, remember your skin color; Forget you are African, remember you are black. Don't look at the map, look at the mirror! So successful was this policy that the Collective name of the captives remained imprisoned within the pigmentation paradigm until 1998. The African American youngsters today in New York and other cities and throughout Africa call each other "my Nigger" contending that these are terms of endearment they use amongst each other.

Their ignorance of history has made them see the name in a friendlier terms than in negative terms, nor are they aware of or have conscious knowledge of their history in this country . Their ignorance of the origin and usage of that term has all but disappeared on the radar of their consciousness and how this word was used against their ancestors; their ignorance of history, their peoples history, has made them think that there is nothing wrong in calling themselves with that debasing name. These are some of the after effects on a cultural war against their ilk

There is a tendency to bury our heads in the sand when it comes to matters of culture and race and how these have really affected us in the past and now in the present. These topics need to be addressed fully and honestly. The more we learn from, rather than deny, our historical reality and its genesis in time and space, the better off we will be in a position to treat each other with understanding, equality and tolerance.

So long as we prefer not to listen or learn about other cultures and respect them, we are like someone who suffers when having his teeth pulled out, and hopes that the painful novocaine injection will ease the pain and stress. The fact remains we still have to take that tooth out, novocaine or not. We cannot suspend disbelief with the hope that our reality, as we see it, is but a movie, nothing more.

Today we see an all out war on a culture of a people through posters, vitriol and hard denunciations and clearly racist attack on other peoples cultures and skin color, and in this case, directed at the President's ancestry.

Because racial minorities historically have not been well reported in the news media, these symbols are often used at a time when the surveillance and correlation functions of the media are called up to describe a change in the environment posed by minorities or define how and where minorities fit into the society.

A study of the national magazine coverage of Mexicans in the United States from 1890 to 1970 revealed a near absence of coverage except when elements of the Mexican population were seen as a threat to society and subject to discriminatory acts by the public or law enforcement officials. In these periods symbols, such as "Zoot-suiters," "Wetbacks," and "Chicanos" in the militant sense, dominated the headlines of national magazines.

Most recently the term "Illegal Alien" has been used to symbolize a person who enters the country illegally and is said to constitute a burden on public resources. A survey of 114 randomly selected articles from California newspapers on undocumented immigration from January 1977 through March 1978 found that nearly half of the articles used the symbols "Alien" or "Illegal Alien" in the headlines. In April and May 2010, the Immigration Law in Arizona has reared its ugly head and now it is in the front pages and tops TV news coverage, Radio Talk Shows and the Internet

Democratic, Non-Corporate Media Activism

The ranting and raving that is still being witnessed on different media forums is not new, but a reality that has historical antecedents. What has been clear is that the multiculturalists have abandoned the ideal that all persons should be judged by the content of their character, not color of their skin. Some see multiculturalism, as in the case of America, as many different races come from many different countries, that to them, this makes America a multicultural country.

One Huber answered this question as to whether America is a melting pot, and he said multiculturalism has been put into practice in Canada, although there is some stability, other ethnic groups in Canada tend to be aggressive and are colliding with others more often. Ethnic groups have not disappeared and still retain some form of attachment to ethic roots and loyalties in the US.

Nowadays each group, whether it has been here long ago, or new in America, it finds that it should preserve its separate identity and space. But if you look at it closely, this is what has been historically the case, race, group,skin color and culture, have always been the distinguishing characteristic of the American culture's ability to create a new whole from many parts.

The problem is having a policy which enables the society to meld these disparate cultures. These ideas lull people into complacency and false certitude that we are multiculturalist society. Given what is happening today in the media outlets and forums and the ideas that are being promulgated, media shrill seems to have reached fever pitch and this has left a lot of people and media pundits wondering what is coming up next...

As Fu-Kiau testified above: "It's mortally dangerous to deviate from certain traditions... it hurts to lose certain traditions, these are the principles of life. The loss can lead to self-destruction of the individuals, society,the world and its civilization..." In short, any effort to reform the balance of class power in the United States, or any other effort for that matter, has to deal directly with corporate media power. Nor is this a merely an ideological issue, as my have been the case in generations past.

Today the largest communication firms rank among the most important firms in global capitalist economy; media, advertising, and communication increasingly are at the very center of capitalist accumulation process and the global market economy. To leave the communication sector untouched, wile elsewhere labor and the left challenge the prerogatives of capital — as any left or labor movement invariably must do — is absurd. Another area of interest is the Media Literacy, and the idea here is to educate people to be skeptical and knowledgeable users of the media.

Media literacy has considerable potential so long as it involves explaining how the media actually works, and does not posit that the existing system is by definition good, democratic and immutable. But the media literacy movement has a highly visible wing that accepts money from corporate media and advertisers, This version of the media literacy implicitly buys into the corporate line that commercial media give the people what they want"(Justin Lewis and Sut Jhally)

So the media literacy crowd's job is to train people to demand better fare from willing and obedient corporate media servant. But unless media literacy takes a more structural approach to analysis and solutions, it may simply help to prop up the existing system(Cynthia Peters)There are some new elements of media activism that are promising like the Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting(FAIR), a media watchdog group launched in the 1980s, provides outstanding analysis of media trends through published reports and it magazines Extra(FAIR also has a program on 99.5 WBAI called Counterspin) FAIR's work helps both those who wish to improve the quality of existing journalism and those who seek structural change.

The Cultural Environmental Movement(CEM), founded in the middle of the 1990s, attempt to draw all sorts of nonprofit and public-interest groups into the campaign of media Reform. Like FAIR, it works for improvement within the status quo as well a for the broader structural reform. Local media alliances have been established in numerous North American cities in the middle and late 1990s, to set up alternative media and to watchdog the local commercial media.

These local groups have shown some potential to draw ordinary citizens into media politics by targeting issues like violence-obsessed local TV news, he newspaper "redlining" of poor neighborhoods, the proliferation of alcohol and cigarettes billboards in poor working-class neighborhood, and the commercialization of education. Even culture "jamming" has aught on, as activists deface, with pointed and often hilarious messages, the advertising billboards that mushroom across the urban landscape.

This new breed of activists stands poised along our information highways waging war on logos and symbols. They are Culture Jammers and their mission is to artfully reclaim our mental environment and cause a bit of brand damage to corporate mindshare. Ultimately Culture Jammers wage a war of meaning. The verdict of public perception lies in a battle between billion dollar PR campaigns and guerrilla tactics of rebel activists.

Through their interventions, culture jammers make a spectacle of ad-culture. (Andrew Keachie) In the 1990s, unlicensed low-powered non-commercial broadcasting conducted on open slots in the radio spectrum have become notable enterprises nationally. It offers the poor, dispossessed and marginalized voices and unprecedented opportunity to be heard.

That all of this activity has blossomed in the current political environment suggests there may be a wellspring for further media organizing. One thing it lacks to succeed are the resources to fully exploit this opportunity. This is the province of organized labor and philanthropic community. It also lacks an overarching vision of where media reform fits into a broader movement for social justice and democracy. Without such a contextualization, the prospects for exacting fundamental media reform in the United States are next to nil. Maybe with the emergence of new technology and techniques wherein the users create their own reality and content, some social reform(through Media technology/technique and free-flow of information and connectivity), some changes in social elations, business social relations will be ameliorated.

Contextualized Media technology And Techniques Free-Flow Of Information And Connectivity

The media landscape has changed, along with what means to be a literate participant in it. It's no longer enough to understand the media we read and watch. We must learn how to read and watch the media through which we understand the world. Our best hope of engaging consciously ad purposefully as media literacy educators is to engage consciously, purposefully, and in person with one another. (Rushkoff)

Media literacy Defined

Within North America, media literacy is seen to consist of communication competencies, including the ability to Access, Analyze, Evaluate, and Communicate information in a variety of forms, including print and non-print messages. Media literacy empowers people to be both critical thinkers and creative producers of an increasingly wide range of messages using image, language and sound, It is the skillful application of literacy skills to media and technology messages.

The term "media literacy" is often used interchangeably with other terms related to media and media technologies. So that, in essence:

  • Media refer to all electronic or digital means and print or artistic visuals used to transmit messages.
  • Literacy is the ability to encode and decode symbols and to synthesize and analyze messages.
  • Media literacy os the ability to encode and decode the symbols transmitted via media and the ability to synthesize, analyze and produce mediated message.
  • Media education is the study of media, including "hands on" experiences and media production
  • Media literacy education is the educational field dedicated to teaching the skills associated with media literacy.


The ability to Access, Analyze,Evaluate,and Communicate information in a variety of forms-is interdisciplinary by nature. Media literacy represents a necessary, inevitable, and realistic response to the complex, ever-changing electronic environment and communication cornucopia tat surrounds us. To become a successful student, responsible citizen, productive worker, or competent and conscientious consumer, individuals need to develop expertise with the increasingly sophisticated information and entertainment media that address us on a multi-sensory level, affecting the way we think, feel and behave. Today's information and entertainment technologies communicate to us through a powerful combination of words,images, and sounds.

As such, we need to develop a wider set of literacy skills helping us to both comprehend the messages we receive and effectively utilize these tools to design and distribute our own messages. Being literate in a media age requires critical thinking skills that empower us as we make decisions, whether in the classroom, the living room,the workplace, the boardroom, or the voting booth.

Finally, while media literacy does raise critical questions about the impact of media and , it is not an anti-media movement. Rather,it represents a coalition of concerned individuals and organizations, including educators, faith-based groups, health-care providers, and citizen and consumer groups, who seek a more enlightened way of understanding our media environmental technology and technique.

Are We Determining The Media Or Is It Controlling Us

Technological Digital Bias and Limits

The debate over whether the Net is good or bad for us fills the airwaves ad the blogosphere. But for all the heat of claim and counter-claim, the argument is essentially beside the point: It's here; it's everywhere. The real question is, do we direct technology, or do we let ourselves be directed by it and those who have mastered it "Choose the former," writes Rushkoff, "and you gain access to the control panel of civilization. Choose the latter, and it could be the last real choice you get to make."

Rushkoff provides cyber-enthusiasts and technophobes alike with the guidelines to navigate this new universe. In this spirited, accessible poetics of new media, Rushkoff picks up where Marshall McLuhan left off, helping users to come to recognize programming as the new literacy of the digital age-and as a template through which to see beyond social conventions and power structures that have vexed us for centuries.

In the digital realm, everything is made into a choice. The medium is biased toward the discrete. This often leaves out things we have not chosen to notice or record, and forces choices when none need to be made. The digital realm is biased toward choice, because everything must be expressed in terms of a discrete, yes-or-no, symbolic language. This, in turn, often forces choices on humans operating within the digital sphere. We must come to recognize the increased number of choices in our lives as largely a side effect of the digital; we always have the choice of making no choice at all.(Rushkoff)

Social institutions are the primary means by which a society defines itself, its views of and relationship to its world. This is the case whether we refer to a society's religious, family, education, scientific, economic, health care, political, or other social institutions. Social institutions structure and give meaning to a society's social thoughts, practices and interactions. They regulate and socialize its members and provide the instrumental means by which the society instructs and polices itself, propagates and reinforces its dominant interests, generates social power, and structures its internal and external power relations.

Institutions in an oppressive society function to maintain its structural status quo. As Michael Parenti contends, "Most America institutions, be they hospitals, museums, universities, businesses, banks, scientific laboratories, or mass media, are ...owned...by a relatively small number of corporate rich. When trying to understand the context and purposes of the media, this pattern of ownership of the media, this pattern of ownership takes on special significance."

We're in an age of information overload, and too much of what we watch, hear, and read is mistaken, deceitful or even dangerous. Yet one can take control and make media serve us-all of us-by being active consumers and participants. This is a hypermediated world where everyone and anyone can represent his/her own reality. We have to attack the problem of representation head-on, and this demands that we become media-active users of our emerging media, instead of passive consumers

Technological Media's Hegemony

The limits of the digital divide upon the collective users, and also the efforts the opportunity for the business types to merely exploit the digital technology's pre-existing bias for yes and no are explained below. After all, the very architecture of the digital is number; every file, picture, song, movie, program, and operating system is just a number. (Open a video or picture of a loved one in your text editor to see it, if you're interested.) And to the computer,that number is actually represented as a series of 1's and0's. There's nothing in between that 1 and 0, since a computer or switch is either on or off. All the messy stuff in between 'yes' and 'no,' 'on' and 'off',' just doesn't travel down wires, through chips, or in packets. For something to be digital, it has to be expressed in digits (Rushkoff) The digitalization of the computer has facilitated for the use and rule and control of the media through and by technique.

We need to look a little bit more into the role played by technique in homogenizing and creating of hegemony is all media in existence. So Jacques Ellul informs us that, "technique is autonomous with respect to economics and politics. So that, at present, neither economic nor political evolution conditions technical progress.. Its progress is likewise independent of the social situation.

"The converse is actually the case: technique elicits and conditions social, political, and economic change. It is the prime mover of all the rest, in spite of any appearance to the contrary and in spite of human pride, which pretends that man's philosophical theories are still determining influences and man's political regimes decisive factors in technical evolution. External necessities no longer determine technique. Technique's own internal necessities are determinative. Technique has become a reality in itself, self-sufficient, with its special laws and its own determinations."

Ellul further adds that, "Technique tolerates no judgement from without and accepts no limitation. It is by virtue of technique rather than science that the great principle has become established: chacun chez soi. Morality judges oral problems; as far as technical problems are concerned, it has nothing to say. ... Thus, technique theoretically and systematically assures to itself that liberty which it has been able to win practically. Since it has put itself beyond good and evil, it need not fear limitation whatever. It was long claimed that technique was neutral. Today this is no longer a useful distinction.

"The power and autonomy of technique are so well secured that it, in its turn, has become the judge of what is moral, the creator of a new morality. Thus, it plays the role of creator of a new civilization as well. This morality-internal to technique-is assured of not having to suffer from technique. In any case, in respect to traditional morality, technique affirms itself as an independent power.

Man alone is subject,it would seem, to moral judgement. We no longer live in that primitive epoch in which things were good or bad in themselves. Technique in itself is neither, and ca therefore do what it will. It is truly autonomous. However, technique cannot assert its autonomy in respect to physical or biological laws. Instead,it put them to work; it seeks to dominate them."

So that, in away, technique determines our choices and in the process narrows our world, as the infinity of possibility is lost in the translation to the binary code, referred to above. Ellul states: "Whenever technique collides with a natural obstacles, it tens to get around it either by replacing the living organism by a machine,or by modifying the organism so that it no longer presents any specifically organic reaction. ... The same phenomenon is evident in yet another area in which technical autonomy asserts itself: the relations between techniques and man.

"We have already seen, in connection with technical self augmentation, that technique pursues its own course more and more independently of man. This means that man participates less and less actively in technical creation, which, by the automatic combination of prior elements, becomes a kind of fate. Man is reduced to the level of a catalyst. Better still, he resembles a slug inserted into a slot machine: he starts the operation without participating in it."

Although they allowed us to work with certain kinds of complexity in the first place, our digital tools often oversimplify nuanced problems. Biased against contradiction and compromise, our digital media tend to polarize us into opposing camps, incapable of recognizing shared values of dealing with paradox. On the Net, we cast out for answers through simple search terms rather than diving into an inquiry and following extended lines of logic.

We lose sight of the fact that our digital tools are modeling reality, not substituting for it, and mistake its oversimplified contours for the way things should be. By acknowledging the bias of the digital toward a reduction of complexity, we regain the ability to treat its simulations as models occurring in a vacuum rather than accurate depictions of our world (Rushkoff).

This was happening because big media corporations are running the media and medium and digital tools, which tilts the power and business outcomes in their favor. We learn from McChesney that:

"The clear trajectory of our media and communication tends toward ever-greater corporate concentration, media conglomeration, and hypercommercialism. The notion of public service — that there should be some motive for media other than profit — is in rapid retreat if not total collapse. The public is regarded not as a democratic polity but simply as a mass of consumers. Public debate over the future of media communication has been effectively eliminated by powerful and arrogant corporate media, which metaphorically floss their teeth with politicians' underpants.

"It is, in short, a system set up to serve the needs of a handful investors, corporate managers, and corporate advertisers. It most important customers are affluent consumers hailing from upper and upper-middle classes. The system serves the general public to the extent that it strengthens and dos not undermine these primary relationships. Needless to say, the implications for democracy of this concentrated, conglomerated, hypercommercialized media are entirely negative. By the logic of this argument, the solution to the current problem of US media demands political debate and structural reform."

If we think that the media is only making us "biased against contradiction and compromise, digital media tend to polarize us into opposing camps, incapable of recognizing shared values of dealing with the paradox", as stated by Rushkoff. So then, what is [a] Paradox?

According to Dictionary.com, a "Paradox" is "a statement or proposition that seems self contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth; or, a self-contradictory and false proposition; either, an opinion or statement contrary to commonly accepted opinion; and, lastly, Reference.com defines Paradox as "a contradiction; it goes against what we accept to be true."

So, what we need to understand is the power and manipulative shenanigans of corporate media and creating a paradox for us, that, although we know whatever it is they presenting and proposing to us is incredible and 'goes against what we accept to be true, what is it that is being done to the users and agents to be 'incapable of recognizing shared values dealing with paradox?'. McChesney informs us:

"Today one must first grasp the nature and logic of the global commercial media system and then determine how local and national media deviate from the overall system. The rise of a global commercial media system is closely linked to the rise of a significantly more integrated "neoliberal" global capitalist economic system To some extent, the rise of global media market is encouraged by new digital and satellite technologies that make global markets both cost-effective and lucrative. ...

"The rise to dominance of the global commercial media system is more than an economic matter; it also has clear implications for media content, politics, and culture. In many ways the emerging global media system is an extension of the US Media Systems.This makes sense, as the firms that dominate US media also dominate the global system and the system operates on the same profit maximizing logic. But there are also some important distinctions.

On the one hand, a number of new firms enter the picture as one turn to the global system On the other hand, and more important, a number of new political and social factors enter the discussion. There are scores of governments, and regional and international organizations that have a say in the regulation of media and communication.

"There are also a myriad of languages and cultures, which makes establishing a global version of the "US/System" quite difficult. But even if the U.S media system and culture will not be punch-pressed onto the globe, the trajectory is toward vastly greater integration, based on commercial terms and dominated by a handful of transnational media conglomerates."

It is these transnational multi-corporations that fully and consistently utilize Technique and autonomy to make profit and control all intellectual property and at times make a profit from such ownership; they also are responsible for shaping and changing perceptions of what they call mass consumers to be more responsive to their wares, than they are in serious media literacy-although on a charitable, thy keep up the front of giving, yet the fleece the consumer through manipulating hyper media and mediums and the message or images.

In spite of its many dehumanizing tendencies, digital media is still biased toward the social. In the ongoing coevolution between people and technologies, tools that connect us thrive-and tools that don't connect us soon learn to. We must remember that the bias of digital media is toward contact with other people, not with their content or, worse, their cash. If we don't, we risk robbing ourselves of the main gift digital technology has to offer us in return for our having created it. We have to learn more about it, in order to be able to determine it as it will still determine us through its techniques, any way.

Cyberdemocracy

Some critics of the idea of Cyberdemocracy. the online practice of self-governance,point to the amount of information available to contemporary citizens and the speed with which it comes as potentially troublesome. Add to these the difficulty in assessing the veracity of much online information, and they argue that the 'cyberworld' may not be the best place to practice democracy.

Advocates of cyberdemocracy see the Internet as a way to let citizens have more direct, quicker access to politicians. Elected officials should hear what the people have to say. But does democracy necessarily benefit when its leaders respond directly, maybe even impulsively, to public sentiment? Until there is no more technology gap, certain voices-the poor, the uneducated, the elderly-will have less access to their leaders than those who are connected. Moreover, claim cyberdemocracy critics, ours is a representative, deliberative democracy.

It was intentionally designed to allow the public's representatives to talk to one another, to debate ideas and issues, to forge solutions that benefit not just their own but others' constituents as well. They claim that the political alienation that is felt by many citizens today is the product of politicians "listening too much" to the loudest voices (that is, special interests) and being "too responsive" to the polls. People often criticize politicians for "flip-flopping" or "having no personal conviction[This is akin to Romney] How can having elected officials responding daily to the voices in the electronic town has improve this situation? Journalist Robert Wright (1995) wrote in Time:

"The Founders explicitly took lawmaking power out of the people's hands, opting for a representative democracy and not a direct democracy. What concerned them, especially James Madison, was the specter of popular "passions" unleashed. Their ideal was cool deliberation by elected representative, buffered from the often shifting winds of opinion. ... Madison insisted in the federalist Papers on the need to "refine and enlarge the public the public views by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens whose wisdom may beat discern the true interest of their country and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial consideration"

Critics also argue that cyberdemocracy, in and of itself, is antidemocratic. Not only is there now an additional medium to further fragment the audience, but by its nature the Internet solidifies people into smaller, more homogenous, more narrowly interested groups. This cannot be good for democracy. The Internet and the Web encourage people to splinter into virtual communities based on a shared interest in some given information.

This renders real world communities irrelevant. No longer "required" to coexist with other people in the day-to-day, cybercitizens have little need to examine their own biases. They need not question their own assumptions about the world and how it works. There is little benefit to seeking out and attempting to understand the biases and assumptions of others outside the self-chosen virtual community.

Media critic and scholar Robert McChesney (1977) writes that among the criteria that must be met if democracy is to serve the needs of its people are "a sense of community and a notion that an individual's well-being is determined to no small extent by the community's well-being" and "an effective system of political communication, broadly construed, that informs and engages the citizenry, drawing people meaningfully into the polity."

Where advocates of the new online communication technologies see them doing just this, many others, often likening, the Net and the Web to "talk radio writ large, fear the opposite, that the Internet has already become a stunning advance in the shoring up of biases, both benign (one's own views) and noxious (other views)".

The Present And Now Effects Of Present-Day Technologies

In his new book, PRESENT SHOCK: When Everything Happens Now (Current; March 15, 2013), Rushkoff introduces the phenomenon of presentism, or — since most of us are finding it hard to adapt — present-shock.

Alvin Toffler’s radical 1970 book, Future Shock, theorized that things were changing so fast we would soon lose the ability to cope. Rushkoff argues that the future is now and we’re contending with a fundamentally new challenge. Whereas Toffler said we were disoriented by a future that was careening toward us, Rushkoff argues that we no longer have a sense of a future, of goals, of direction at all. We have a completely new relationship to time; we live in an always-on “now,” where the priorities of this moment seem to be everything.

Wall Street traders no longer invest in a future; they expect profits off their algorithmic trades themselves, in the ultra-fast moment. Voters want immediate results from their politicians, having lost all sense of the historic timescale on which government functions. Kids txt during parties to find out if there’s something better happening in the moment, somewhere else.

Rushkoff identifies the five main ways we’re struggling, as well as how the best of us are thriving in the now:

  1. Narrative collapse — the loss of linear stories and their replacement with both crass reality programming and highly intelligent post-narrative shows like The Simpsons. With no goals to justify journeys, we get the impatient impulsiveness of the Tea Party, as well as the unbearably patient presentism of the Occupy movement. The new path to sense-making is more like an open game than a story.
  2. Digiphrenia – how technology lets us be in more than one place — and self — at the same time. Drone pilots suffer more burnout than real-world pilots, as they attempt to live in two worlds — home and battlefield — simultaneously. We all become overwhelmed until we learn to distinguish between data flows (like Twitter) that can only be dipped into, and data storage (like books and emails) that can be fully consumed.
  3. Overwinding – trying to squish huge timescales into much smaller ones, like attempting to experience the catharsis of a well-crafted, five-act play in the random flash of a reality show; packing a year’s worth of retail sales expectations into a single Black Friday event — which only results in a fatal stampede; or — like the Real Housewives - freezing one’s age with Botox only to lose the ability to make facial expressions in the moment. Instead, we can “springload” time into things, like the “pop-up” hospital Israel sent to Tsunami-wrecked Japan.
  4. Fractalnoia – making sense of our world entirely in the present tense, by drawing connections between things — sometimes inappropriately. The conspiracy theories of the web, the use of Big Data to predict the direction of entire populations, and the frantic effort of government to function with no “grand narrative.” But also the emerging skill of “pattern recognition” and the efforts of people to map the world as a set of relationships called TheBrain – a grandchild of McLuhan’s “global village”.
  5. Apocalypto – the intolerance for presentism leads us to fantasize a grand finale. “Preppers” stock their underground shelters while the mainstream ponders a zombie apocalypse, all yearning for a simpler life devoid of pings, by any means necessary. Leading scientists — even outspoken atheists — prove they are not immune to the same apocalyptic religiosity in their depictions of “the singularity” and “emergence," through which human evolution will surrender to that of pure information.

"This is a wondrously thought-provoking book. Unlike other social theorists who either mindlessly decry or celebrate the digital age, Rushkoff explores how it has caused a focus on the immediate moment that can be both disorienting or energizing. In an era that seems intent on deleting the art of narrative. Rushkoff creates a compelling narrative of the way we now live. “Rushkoff is damn smart. As someone who understood the digital revolution faster and better than almost anyone, he shows how the internet is a social transformer that should change the way your business culture operates."
– Walter Isaacson

We’re not, Rushkoff argues, just overburdened with the infinite inputs of the digital age, but we’ve become unmoored from our traditional relationship with time. While, in the past, we looked toward the future, now we are all about the now; we are “defined by presentism.”

The debate over whether the Net is good or bad for us fills the airwaves and the blogosphere. But for all the heat of claim and counter-claim, the argument is essentially beside the point: it’s here; it’s everywhere. The real question is, do we direct technology, or do we let ourselves be directed by it and those who have mastered it? “Choose the former,” writes Rushkoff, “and you gain access to the control panel of civilization. Choose the latter, and it could be the last real choice you get to make.” In ten chapters, composed of ten “commands” accompanied by original illustrations from comic artist Leland Purvis, Rushkoff provides cyberenthusiasts and technophobes alike with the guidelines to navigate this new universe.

In this spirited, accessible poetics of new media, Rushkoff picks up where Marshall McLuhan left off, helping readers come to recognize programming as the new literacy of the digital age––and as a template through which to see beyond social conventions and power structures that have vexed us for centuries. This is a friendly little book with a big and actionable message.

World-renowned media theorist and counterculture figure Douglas Rushkoff is the originator of ideas such as “viral media,” “social currency” and “screenagers.” He has been at the forefront of digital society from its beginning, correctly predicting the rise of the net, the dotcom boom and bust, as well as the current financial crisis.

This Is The New "Now": From "Futurism" To "Presentism"

Douglass Rushkoff writes:

"Our society has orientated itself to the present moment. Everything is live, real time, and always-on. It's not a mere speeding up, however much our lifestyles and technologies have accelerated the rate at which we attempt todo things. It's more a diminishment of anything that isn't happening right now-and the onslaught of everything that supposedly is.

"It's why the world's leading search engine is evolving into a live, customized, and predictive flow of data branded 'Google Now,' why e-mail is giving way to texting, and why blogs are superseded by Twitter feeds. It is why kids in school can no longer follow linear arguments; why narrative structure collapsed into reality TV; and why we can't engage in meaningful dialogue about last month's books and music, much less long-term global issues. It is why an economy once based on long-term investment and interest-bearing currency can no longer provide capital to those who plan to put it to work for future rewards. It's why so many long for a "singularity" or a 2012 apocalypse to end linear time altogether and throw us into a post-historic eternal present-no matter the cost to human agency or civilization itself.

"But it's also how we find out what;s happening on the streets of Iran before CNN can assemble a camera crew. It's what enable an unsatisfied but upwardly mobile executive to quit his job and move with his family to Vermont to make Kayaks-which he thought he'd get to do only once he retired. It's how millions of young people can choose to embody a new "activism" based in patient consensus instead of contentious debate. It's what enables companies like H&M or Zara to fabricate clothes in real time, based on the instantaneous data incoming from scanned tags at checkout counters five thousand miles away. It's how a president can run fro office and win by breaking from the seeming tyranny of the past and its false hope, and tell voters that "we are the ones we have been waiting for."

"Well, the waiting is over. Here we are ...

"If the end of the twentieth century can be characterized by 'Futurism,' the twenty-first century can be defined by 'Presentism'.

"The looking forward so prevalent in the late 1990s was bound to end once the new millennium began. Like some others of that era, I predicted a new focus on the moment, the real experience, and on what things are actually worth right now. Then 9/11 magnified this sensibility, forcing America as a nation to contend with its own impermanence. People had babies in droves, and even filed for divorces, in what was at least an unconscious awareness that none of us lives forever and an accompanying reluctance to postpone things indefinitely.

"Add real-time technologies, from the iPhone to Twitter; a disposable consumer economy where 1-Click ordering is more important than the actual product being purchased; a multitasking brain actually incapable of storage or sustained argument; and an economy based on spending now that one may or may not earn in a lifetime, and you can't help but become temporally disorientated. It's akin to the onslaught of changing rules and circumstances that 1970s 'futurist Alvin Toffler dubbed "future Shock."

"Only, in our era it's more of a 'Present Shock.' And this is clearly "of the moment," it's not quite as in the moment as we may have expected.

"For While many of us were correct about the way all this 'Presentism' would affect investment and finance, even technology and media, we were utterly wrong about living in the 'Now' would end up impacting us as people. Our focus o the "Present" may have liberated us from the twentieth century's dangerously compelling ideological narratives. No none-well, hardly anyone-can still be convinced that brutal means are justified by mythological ends.

"And people are less likely to believe employers' and corporations' false promises of future rewards for years of loyalty now. But it has not actually brought us into greater awareness of that is going on around us. We are not approaching some Zen State of an infinite moment, completely at one with our surroundings, connected to others, and aware of ourselves on any fundamental level.

"Rather, we tend to exist in a distracted 'present'. Where forces on the periphery are magnified and those immediately before us are ignored. Our ability to create a plan-much less follow through on it-is undermined by our need to be able to improvise our way through any number of external impacts that stand to derail us at any moment. Instead of finding a stable foothold in the "here-and-now," we end up reacting to the ever-present assault of simultaneous impulses and commands.

"In some sense, this was the goal of those who developed the computers and networks on which we depend today. Mid-twentieth-century computing visionaries Vannevar Bush and J.C.R. Licklider dreamed of developing machines that could do our remembering for us. Computers would free us from the tyranny of the past-as well as the horrors of World War II-allowing us to forget everything and devote our minds to solving the problems of today. The information would still be there; it would simply be stored out of body, in a machine.

"It's a tribute to both their designs on the future and their devotion to the past that they succeeded in their quest to free up the 'present' of the burden of memory. We have, in a sense,been allowed to dedicate much more of our cognitive resources to active RAM than to maintaining our cerebral-storage hard drives. But we are also in danger of squandering this cognitive surplus on the trivial pursuit of the immediately relevant over any continuance of the innovation that got us to this point.

"Neuroscientists, mostly at the service of corporations looking to develop more compliant employees and consumers, are homing in on the way people make choices. But no matter how many subjects they put in the MRI machines, the focus of this research is decision-making in the 'moment,' the impulsive choices made in the blink of an eye, rather than those made by the lobes responsible for rational thought or consideration. By implementing their wares solely on the impulsive-while diminishing or altogether disregarding the considered-they push us toward acting in what is thought of as an instinctual, reptilian fashion.

"And this mode of behavior is then justified as somehow more connected to the organic, emotional, and immediately relevant moment in which human beings actually live. Of course, this depiction of consciousness may help sell the services of neurotechnicians to advertisers, but it does not accurately represent how the human brain relates to the m'moment' in which the organism exists.

"No matter how invasive the technologies at their disposal, marketers and pollsters never come to terms with the living process through which people choose products or candidates; they are looking at what people just bought or thought, and making calculations based on that after-the-fact data. The "Now" they seek to understand tells the nothing about desire, reasons, or context. It is simply an effort to key-off what we have just done in order to manipulate our decisions in the future. Their campaigns encourage the kinds of impulsive behavior that fool us into thinkin